It is a really interesting case because it is one where (IMO) Wilders' words have been interpreted as he intends them to be. He intends to target Muslims and he intends to stir up hostility towards that group. But as you say he is clever with how he does it. When you take his words absolutely literally in the eyes of the law, he hasn't quite crossed the line. We can argue that his intention is clear, his defence will argue that he hasn't actually done anything wrong. How will it all land?

Will this be one of those cases where 'no publicity is bad publicity' for Wilders?